Title: Frontline: The Spill
Director: Martin Smith, Marcela Gaviria
Release year: 2010
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The Spill was a documentary based on the oil company BP, and their safety record in recent years. BP is responsible for some of the largest ecological disasters in the last decade, the following is a timeline of some or BP’s more recent accidents:
2005, a massive explosion ripped through a tower at BP's refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring 170 others.
2005, the deep water platform, Thunder horse, nearly sank into the gulf of Mexico due to human error.
2006, a refinery explosion, technicians discovered that some 4,800 barrels of oil had spread into the Alaskan snow through a tiny hole in the company's pipeline in Prudhoe Bay.
2010, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, oil flowed unabated for three months. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.
This is just a few accidents that have plagued BP in the last few years. With an egregious record like BP’s it seems unreasonable for them to be able to continue drill in deep water or to operate a refinery, they somehow are still allowed to operate even though they seem to put profits above safety.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument made by the narrator is very much sustained through the movie. I was appalled and shocked by the track record that BP had. I couldn’t believe that they were still allowed to operate after spending just as much on gag orders and medical compensation to injured employees as they would have spent to get their facilities up to safe operating conditions. There wasn’t very much scientific information supplied through the movie but there were plenty of facts that raised many questions.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film draws out a major sustainability problem that is BP. This petroleum company is totally unsafe and has no regard for their employee’s safety. The documentary portrays them as a company that only seems to care maximizing profits while not maintaining their facilities.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was compelled by the entire film. I was aware of the large oil spill that occurred in the Gulf a number of years ago but I had no idea of all of their other accidents or their track record with employee deaths. At one point in the film the narrator pointed out BP had 22 employ deaths in the last 30 years. That averages out to an employee death every 16 months. Many employees even admitted to being fearful of their work and believed that their lives were at great risks.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think anyone who owns shares in BP stock should view this film. It’s unbelievable how much BP cut cost with hopes of being able to excel past their quarterly projections, but It was shocking that they would do it at the expense of a dead employee or an ecological disaster. If you happen to own BP stock you may think they are a successful company because you receive a dividend check in the mail but is that check worth being involved in some of the worst disasters in the oil industry? I think many stockholders would have second thoughts of owning a share of BP.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have enjoyed more information in the way of the Gulf of Mexico spill. The documentary didn’t spend very much time discussing it, I’m assuming this was because it was all the news media covered for nearly three months but there were no estimates given in the film regarding the amount of oil that was leached into the gulf. I would have also liked to hear more information regarding how the accident occurred. I had heard differing stories during the actual time of the disaster and I think it would have added to the film if they had briefly explained what had gone wrong. This would have made the film seem more seamless since they did explain the technical details of previous accidents that BP had involvement in.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html
This is an article in Time magazine regarding the state of the Gulf of Mexico one year after the oil spill occurred. It turns out the that the state of the area is not as bad as experts thought it may be, Many of the gallons leached from the broken well have dispersed better than anyone had hoped. Of the 1.84 million gallons that made landfall much of it was still wreaking havoc on the ecological system but scientist are still optimistic about those numbers compared to what “could have been”. This is a very tedious situation though because even the cleanup of the oil apparently will have negative effects on the ecological system, for example the burning of oil on the surface of the Gulf, and the tens of thousands of workers who trampled along the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana, corralling crude wherever they could. Finally the scientists caution that a single year isn't long enough to draw any final conclusions about an environmental accident so large in scale.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=488&contentId=2000734
This is a page from BP’s website outlining what they intend to do rebuild their image in the American public’s eye. They give little factual information of what they plan to do except “pledge 20 billion in environmental restoration”. I would be very interested to know who is responsible for monitoring their disbursement to confirm they do what they promise. Also in the article they discuss how the world will continue to need more energy every year and for them to be extradited from doing business it would do more harm than good. I don’t necessarily believe any of that because there are many oil companies that seem to have a better track record and put their employee’s safety above profits. I would much rather see those companies fill in for BP and eliminate their atrocious business practices.
Director: Martin Smith, Marcela Gaviria
Release year: 2010
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The Spill was a documentary based on the oil company BP, and their safety record in recent years. BP is responsible for some of the largest ecological disasters in the last decade, the following is a timeline of some or BP’s more recent accidents:
- 2005, a massive explosion ripped through a tower at BP's refinery in Texas City, Texas, killing 15 workers and injuring 170 others.
- 2005, the deep water platform, Thunder horse, nearly sank into the gulf of Mexico due to human error.
- 2006, a refinery explosion, technicians discovered that some 4,800 barrels of oil had spread into the Alaskan snow through a tiny hole in the company's pipeline in Prudhoe Bay.
2010, Gulf of Mexico oil spill, oil flowed unabated for three months. It is the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.This is just a few accidents that have plagued BP in the last few years. With an egregious record like BP’s it seems unreasonable for them to be able to continue drill in deep water or to operate a refinery, they somehow are still allowed to operate even though they seem to put profits above safety.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument made by the narrator is very much sustained through the movie. I was appalled and shocked by the track record that BP had. I couldn’t believe that they were still allowed to operate after spending just as much on gag orders and medical compensation to injured employees as they would have spent to get their facilities up to safe operating conditions. There wasn’t very much scientific information supplied through the movie but there were plenty of facts that raised many questions.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film draws out a major sustainability problem that is BP. This petroleum company is totally unsafe and has no regard for their employee’s safety. The documentary portrays them as a company that only seems to care maximizing profits while not maintaining their facilities.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was compelled by the entire film. I was aware of the large oil spill that occurred in the Gulf a number of years ago but I had no idea of all of their other accidents or their track record with employee deaths. At one point in the film the narrator pointed out BP had 22 employ deaths in the last 30 years. That averages out to an employee death every 16 months. Many employees even admitted to being fearful of their work and believed that their lives were at great risks.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
I think anyone who owns shares in BP stock should view this film. It’s unbelievable how much BP cut cost with hopes of being able to excel past their quarterly projections, but It was shocking that they would do it at the expense of a dead employee or an ecological disaster. If you happen to own BP stock you may think they are a successful company because you receive a dividend check in the mail but is that check worth being involved in some of the worst disasters in the oil industry? I think many stockholders would have second thoughts of owning a share of BP.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I would have enjoyed more information in the way of the Gulf of Mexico spill. The documentary didn’t spend very much time discussing it, I’m assuming this was because it was all the news media covered for nearly three months but there were no estimates given in the film regarding the amount of oil that was leached into the gulf. I would have also liked to hear more information regarding how the accident occurred. I had heard differing stories during the actual time of the disaster and I think it would have added to the film if they had briefly explained what had gone wrong. This would have made the film seem more seamless since they did explain the technical details of previous accidents that BP had involvement in.
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html
This is an article in Time magazine regarding the state of the Gulf of Mexico one year after the oil spill occurred. It turns out the that the state of the area is not as bad as experts thought it may be, Many of the gallons leached from the broken well have dispersed better than anyone had hoped. Of the 1.84 million gallons that made landfall much of it was still wreaking havoc on the ecological system but scientist are still optimistic about those numbers compared to what “could have been”. This is a very tedious situation though because even the cleanup of the oil apparently will have negative effects on the ecological system, for example the burning of oil on the surface of the Gulf, and the tens of thousands of workers who trampled along the sensitive wetlands of Louisiana, corralling crude wherever they could. Finally the scientists caution that a single year isn't long enough to draw any final conclusions about an environmental accident so large in scale.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=488&contentId=2000734
This is a page from BP’s website outlining what they intend to do rebuild their image in the American public’s eye. They give little factual information of what they plan to do except “pledge 20 billion in environmental restoration”. I would be very interested to know who is responsible for monitoring their disbursement to confirm they do what they promise. Also in the article they discuss how the world will continue to need more energy every year and for them to be extradited from doing business it would do more harm than good. I don’t necessarily believe any of that because there are many oil companies that seem to have a better track record and put their employee’s safety above profits. I would much rather see those companies fill in for BP and eliminate their atrocious business practices.